snark: a (well-deserved) attitude of mocking irreverence and sarcasm

January 24, 2019

I like David and Goliath stories. I always root for David, the little guy or gal.

That's why I'm hoping Salem's small 35-student Heritage School gets treated fairly by City officials and the City Council regarding its concerns about what the large, rich, and powerful Mountain West Investment Corporation wants to build adjacent to the school.

A Statesman Journal story mostly misses the point about why the Heritage School wants to see changes made to a Mountain West proposal to build a 180-unit apartment complex next to the school.

The story, "Salem's Fairview Training Center was intended as a green business, residential community. What happened?," veers off into describing the complex history of Fairview after the 275 acre site in south Salem was bought in 2002 by a group of people with a dream of fashioning the property into a world-class sustainable community.

[UPDATE: I shared a PDF file of the story, but the Statesman Journal just told me that even though I've subscribed to the newspaper for 42 years, it's a no-no to share the copyrighted story, so I removed the file.]

But the real story is about what's happening today, not yesterday.

Looking back is fine as a historical exercise.

However, the conflict between what Mountain West wants to construct and what the Heritage School considers to be in accord with Master Plans for developments on the Fairview property almost certainly is going to come before the Salem City Council eventually, so the Mayor, councilors, and City officials need to have a firm grasp on a few simple truths that weren't emphasized enough in the Statesman Journal story.

(2) The Heritage School bought property at Fairview in 2004, expecting that further development in the acreage surrounding the school would be developed in accord with the Fairview Master Plan. Sure, "refinements" to that plan were expected, but not massive changes.

(3) Indeed, the 2016 refinement plan says, "Special care is taken as the land added to the Refinement Plan area is regulated to be compatible with the adjoining land uses." So since the Heritage School has been at Fairview for 15 years, people involved with the school rightfully expect that the Mountain West apartment complex will reflect the above-mentioned principles of sustainability, as Pringle Creek Community and Fairview Addition do to a large extent.

(4) But Mountain West basically has plans to construct three-story buildings that are similar, if not identical, to other apartment complexes it has built. Only lip service is being paid to green construction, preserving natural surroundings, encouraging alternative transportation, and other sustainable principles that are supposed to be followed by those developing property at what's known as "Sustainable Fairview."

Obviously Mountain West Investment Corporation knew it was buying land that's supposed to be developed in accord with the Fairview Master Plan and Refinement Plan. Yet the company is asking for a bunch of variances that would allow it to escape various requirements of those plans.

It's important to note that what the Heritage School is requesting is that Mountain West be required to build the apartment complex in accord with the sustainable vision that makes the Fairview property unique in Salem.

Seemingly Mountain West is counting on City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council on being willing to give a big rich, powerful "Goliath" developer an exemption from the sustainable principles that drew the Heritage School, Pringle Creek Community, and Fairview Addition/Olsen Development to Fairview.

Which isn't fair.

Since Mountain West wants to build a standard cookie-cutter apartment complex, it should have bought land elsewhere in Salem, not at Fairview. Plunking a non-sustainable development in the middle of the Sustainable Fairview property diminishes the stake of those who chose to locate at Fairview before Mountain West.

The Statesman Journal story describes the minimal commitment Mountain West is making to Fairview's sustainable vision.

Brian Moore, Mountain West's director of real estate development, outlined features of the development "that we believe advance sustainable purposes." Those include the installation of electric-vehicle charging stations and the preservation of 21 mature trees, with plans to plant more than 250 additional trees.

Whoopee. This is pathetic.

I'm pretty sure Mountain West is required to preserve the mature trees in accord with a tree conservation plan in the 2016 Refinement Plan. And a few charging stations is almost insulting to the original vision of Sustainable Fairview.

My wife and I owned shares in Sustainable Fairview Associates from 2003 to 2006, when we checked out with a 30% profit after I became a SFA gadfly -- being dissatisfied with how development of the property was being carried out (or rather, attempted to be carried out).

So it's pained me to observe how the original vision for Sustainable Fairview has been steadily chipped away, with the notable exception of Pringle Creek Community. Some of the blame for this falls on City officials who care more about having some sort of development occur at Fairview rather than requiring quality sustainable development.

And here we go again, revisiting what happened in 2012 when I pleaded in a blog post, "City Council, preserve the vision of 'Sustainable Fairview.'" Back then, as now, a standard apartment complex was planned for what should be a special community. Hopefully the City Council will act more wisely this time. Here's some excerpts from the post:

Don't allow the beautiful property in south Salem to become less than the world-class Green development that Sustainable Fairview currently is zoned as.

A few days ago I learned that the Salem Planning Commission is OK with turning the undeveloped portion of the property from a vibrant green to a blah gray, architecturally speaking. On May 14 the City Council meets to decide whether to allow Simpson Hills, LLC to build a bunch of typical apartments on 43 of the 104 acres it owns at the site that used to house the Fairview Training Center.

...When Simpson Hills, LLC bought 104 acres of the Sustainable Fairview property, the buyers knew that this was, duh..., a sustainable development with especially sustainable zoning regulations that had been approved by the City of Salem quite a few years ago.

The vision of the Sustainable Fairview Master Plan, for example, included having highly energy-efficient homes; all stormwater captured on site; minimal emphasis on cars/roads; varied types of housing; mixed uses on site so people could "live, work, and play" in a conveniently compact area.

Disappointingly, Simpson Hills, LLC now wants to back off substantially from those laudable goals.

Note the expanse of gray in the plan for lots 1-3 above. Those are parking lots and roads. Lots of lots. Lots of roads. The rain water that runs off them, which will be lots, is planned to end up in the holding pond shown on the right of the drawing. Then all the water will go into Pringle Creek.

Pringle Creek Community, by contrast, has permeable asphalt and other ways of capturing stormwater. And the original plans for Sustainable Fairview envisioned limited "obvious" parking, with cars sequestered behind dwelling units, rather than prominently parked front and center.

...Simpson Hills, LLC shouldn't be allowed to breeze into town with a cookie-cutter proposal for the Sustainable Fairview property that maximizes profits for themselves and minimizes Salem's chance to have a world class Green development.

...Frequently I critique Salem's blah'ness on this blog. There's a good reason Oregon's capital is nicknamed "So-lame." Often, it is.

Sustainable Fairview is a non-lame flash of creativity, innovation, excitement, and world-class Green design that needs to be nurtured, not crushed by a Simpson Hills, LLC proposal which seeks to markedly diminish those qualities.

January 23, 2019

As far as I know, the City of Salem had no intention of buying the 45-acre property that formerly housed the Hillcrest Youth Correctional Facility until Salem activist Mark Wigg proposed this, and I shared Wigg's ideas in a September 2018 blog post that went to City officials: "Hillcrest is for sale. The City of Salem should buy it."

I learned of this from Mark Wigg, who is active in promoting more walking/cycling trails in Salem, along with more parks. Below you can read a presentation Wigg emailed me, which I presume has been sent to City of Salem officials and City Council members.

What he says makes a lot of sense. In a follow-up email, Wigg added: "Living accommodations for 300. Gym kitchens classrooms pool."

Salem officials are weighing whether to buy the former Hillcrest Youth Correctional Facility on the city's southeast side, though it's too soon to say what they'd do with the land.

...The Oregon Department of Administrative Services, which generally handles the state's real estate transactions, has listed the roughly 45-acre Hillcrest site at 2450 Strong Road SE — across the street from the former Fairview Training Center property — for $5.6 million.

...Hillcrest has several halls, an administrative building and a former high school. Should Salem officials buy the Hillcrest site, they would consider leaving at least one of the buildings for housing, according to a city report.

The site's administrative building is apparently "the most feasible option" to turn into transitional single room occupant housing that would include restroom and kitchen facilities, according to the report.

And here's Wigg's newest great idea for a multi-use path he calls the West Salem Loop. It incorporates the Salemtowne to Downtown path along a Marine Drive easement. See this PDF file for the long description of the proposal.Download Trail dream-West Salem Loop

Here's clickable email links for Councilor Jim Lewis and Councilor Cara Kaser. Please let them know that you want the City of Salem to make the West Salem Loop a priority. This would be a wonderful addition to Salem's multi-use paths.

So the folks who invested a lot of time, energy, and money into renovating a building on the Fairview property, anticipating that the surrounding acreage would be developed in accord with a Sustainable Fairview Master Plan, now are justifiably irked that Mountain West Investment Corporation plans to build a 180-unit cookie-cutter apartment complex directly across from the Heritage School.

Here's a PDF file of a January 4, 2018 letter from the Heritage School to the Salem Planning Commission that lays out the school's concerns about the Mountain West development. The screenshot below shows the conclusion of this testimony.Download Heritage School Testimony PDF

Note that the Heritage School isn't opposed to Mountain West building an apartment complex on the Fairview property. The school just wants to have that complex developed in accord with the sustainable principles embodied in the original Fairview Master Plan and 2016 Refinement Plan. Read the school's testimony to the Planning Commission (link above) for details.

Recently I talked by phone with Wendi Warren Binford, a Willamette University Law School professor who co-signed the Heritage School testimony letter. One of her children graduated from the Heritage School, which offers classes in grades 1-8, and she has another child currently in 3rd grade.

Here's how she summarized the Mountain West apartment complex in a written message:

As for the development, it is comprised of 16 buildings, including 15 monolithic three-story apartment blocks on just nine acres. Their “pathways” repeatedly cut through parking lots, alleys, driveways, and streets. It is an extremely hostile concrete and asphalt environment to pedestrians, cyclists, and especially, to children.

Binford wanted to speak with me because I've written extensively about the Sustainable Fairview development. My wife and I owned shares in Sustainable Fairview Associates from 2003-2006, so I have firsthand knowledge of how the original vision for this property has steadily been eroded over the years.

I was told that three three-story apartment buildings are planned to be built directly across from the Heritage School, just 40 feet from the children. People in the apartments would look right into the school's windows.

"The school came to Fairview for the original vision," Binford said. "And the school has stayed true to the vision."

Unfortunately, the City of Salem has allowed repeated diminishing of that vision over the years through incorrectly named "refinement" plans for the Sustainable Fairview property. I say incorrectly, because the changes haven't really been refinements to the original vision, but wholesale alterations.

Salem took a leap of faith in 2008. It designated a special plot to have world-class qualities. “Sustainable Fairview” (near Reed and Battle Creek Roads) would be ‘green,’ innovative – energy efficient. The City wrote the recipe down in a Master Plan.

On August 13, 2012 Salem’s City Council chose to piss the Master Plan away. It voted to build 41.1 acres in a manner inconsistent with Plan requirements. The action was the latest in a series by Salem’s Planning Commission, city staff and City Council to rip up the promise of Fairview.

Some blame the developers: after all Simpson Hills LLC and AKS Engineering had a clear look at the Master Plan from the get-go. But we don’t demand developers be ethical, (though we should) because if we did, we’d all still have to construct our own houses with neighborhood “barn raisings.”

But the City of Salem – deserves our scorn. And maybe we too are guilty, for not holding it more accountable.

When, even after critique from “sustainable” quarters, the developer’s second proposal came in badly lacking, (it did not comply with a single of the original requirements, according to Morningside Neighborhood Association) – our city endorsed it. Planning Administrator Glen Gross recommended it; the Planning Commission approved it.

So here we go again. I don't believe the Mountain West apartment complex is part of the Simpson Hills property, but the same process is being followed in the plan review process -- which Binford told me requires 11 variances.

Supporters of Heritage School got a continuance of a Salem Planning Commission hearing until January 8.

Binford believes the Planning Commission will approve the apartment complex plan, but is more optimistic that, upon appeal, the City Council could modify that plan to make it both more in line with the original vision of Sustainable Fairview, and create fewer hardships for the Heritage School.

Earlier this month the Salem Breakfast on Bikes blog had a post about the proposed Mountain West apartment complex. These comments were right-on.

On the 18th the Planning Commission will look at plans for what appears to be a cookie-cutter development of three-story walkup apartments with parking lots in the former Village Center area. It would be called "the Grove."

In 2016 a revision reduced much of the area for the Village Center, but still called it "Adaptive Use" zone (in red below). At this point, however, it sure doesn't look like the plan at hand "adapts" any building at all.

Without more information it's premature to pass much judgement, but on the surface it looks like a substantial dilution, or perhaps even erasure, of several of the key concepts for the Fairview project.

In the "Class 2 Adjustment" part there are 12 separate requests for adjustment. It's surprising a new Refinement Plan is not part of the current round of process, as the adjustments may very well be more than merely fiddling on the edges and constitute more substantial change, especially when they are considered as a totality and not severally. Those "incremental" adjustments add up.

Exactly. The Heritage School bought property at Fairview expecting that City officials would only allow development on the 275 acres that was consistent with the Sustainable Fairview Master Plan.

But there's been a steady reworking of the Master Plan, until now it's difficult to recognize anything truly "sustainable" in the proposed Mountain West apartment complex. A powerful developer such as the Mountain West Investment Corporation shouldn't be allowed to trample on the rights of a small educational institution like the Heritage School.

This is the David vs. Goliath ethical dilemma that the Salem City Council likely will have to wrestle with at some point.

I'm hoping David comes out on top, because this town has a long history of elevating the interests of developers over those of ordinary citizens, and this needs to stop, with a better balance between those competing interests being struck.

November 09, 2018

Costco’s road to a new location in south Salem is not over after neighbors appealed the city’s recent decision to allow the Kuebler Gateway Shopping Center. The appeals trigger what could be months of more deliberation.

They contend the shopping center project grew over the years into something incompatible with the area, that the city relied on a flawed traffic analysis, that it threatens to uproot protected trees and that it will pollute the nearby air and water.

Attorney Karl Anuta’s appeal on behalf of the three neighbors — Lora Meisner, William Dalton and John D. Miller — also claims the city didn’t disclose the pertinent documents before its decision and argues “the public was likely misled.”

I like to see people in Salem standing up against development that threatens their neighborhood's livability. Growth is going to happen. But it needs to be smart growth, not dumb growth.

Plunking a giant Costco Big Box store, complete with a high traffic fueling station, right next to a residential area is dumb. Hopefully the City Council will hear the neighbors' appeal of the City of Salem's approval of the Kuebler Gateway Shopping Center and make things right.

October 25, 2018

What's the value of eight lives? Is it greater or less than the desire of Costco to build a new Salem store on the graves of the deceased?

I'm talking about the lives of large white oaks, not humans. But those are important questions to tree-loving people like me, which includes many of the neighbors who live near the Kuebler Gateway Shopping Center where the Salem Costco is planned to be relocated.

Here's a photo of a beautiful white oak in our yard. I wanted to show it before discussing the rather dry details of what Costco is proposing to do with the property, and what City of Salem officials recently approved.

My wife and I love this tree. We've been told it's about 250 years old. It was here long before us, and we hope that it will be here long after we're gone. The tree is about 43 inches in diameter, best I can tell.

For tree-lovers like us, a white oak means a lot. I sit on our deck and look at it (yes, I even talk to it) when I'm feeling down. The fact that it has stood there for centuries, lasting through all kinds of storms, helps make me feel that whatever I'm going through, I too can endure -- just for not nearly as many years as the tree.

Here's a image from architect Geoffrey James that shows the proposed site plan for the new Costco store.

I found it in the October 23 Land Use Decision documents posted on the City of Salem web site. James added the language under the black line, since he favors saving the significant white oaks by having the Costco store built in a different location on the property.

Those little green dots in the footprint of the proposed store represent "significant" white oaks, meaning oaks greater than 24 inches in diameter. Note that there are five Pros listed for this site plan, and only one Con: "All oak trees removed."

Four little words. But they say a lot.

Costco and the City of Salem view "All oak trees removed" as the price of allowing commercial development to occur next to a residential neighborhood. Neighbors, not surprisingly, see those words much differently.

Above is a portion of a letter submitted to City officials by an attorney hired by neighbors who oppose the current Costco development plan. The letter correctly says that removal of significant Oregon White Oaks for a commercial development is allowed only when the removal is "necessary." So what does "necessary" mean in this context?

Given the dictionary definition of this word, seemingly it means required, unavoidable, inescapable, compulsory. But the image above, again with language added by Geoffrey James, shows an alternative site plan prepared by the Costco consultant that preserves all of the white oaks.

Several other alternative site plans, which I haven't shown, would also preserve all or some of the white oaks. Here's a PDF file of testimony submitted by James in opposition to the "kill all the Oaks" Costco site plan. It shows all of the alternative plans submitted by the Costco consultant.Download COSTCO OAKS PROTECTION

Thus it sure seems that destruction of the eight significant white oaks wasn't "necessary" for Costco to do; it just was what Costco "desired" to do. And so far City officials have gone along with that desire.

This isn't the end of the Costco development tale.

Neighbors might appeal the City's decision to approve the current design of the project. (I'd certainly contribute to a Save the Oaks fundraising campaign that pays for legal fees.) And the City Council might have the final say on the current proposal that removes the eight significant white oaks.

It's good that both the Salem Reporter and Statesman Journal have published stories on this subject. But I don't think either Troy Brynelson or Jonathan Bach covered the proposed removal of the white oaks in sufficient detail. The Statesman Journal story said:

The city pegged 17 conditions onto its decision, released Tuesday.

Among them: there must be bicycle parking for every one of the proposed buildings; at least 16 Oregon White Oaks have to be part of the shopping center's landscape design; a driveway on 27th Avenue SE should be transformed into a single-lane roundabout; and a stop sign should go in on the new driveway approach for Boone Road SE.

It's true that two white oaks have to be planted for every oak removed. So that probably is how the figure of "at least 16 Oregon White Oaks" was derived. But the new oaks only have to be two inches across, while the eight significant oaks are at least 24 inches in diameter. And hugely bigger and more attractive, of course.

In a 34-page document outlining its decision, the city said the project must meet at least 17 conditions. The conditions tell PacTrust Realty Group, the Portland firm proposing the project, to include pedestrian pathways, more landscaping, bumper guards in the parking lot, bicycle parking and more.

One condition asks that at least 16 Oregon white oaks are "incorporated into the landscape design for the shopping center." Neighbors had worried construction would chop down existing Oregon white oaks, which Salem city code deems "significant."

Today I emailed Brynelson and told him that I thought he needed to revise the story, since the significant white oaks were slated for removal, showing that the worries of the neighbors were justified. To his credit, Brynelson phoned me this afternoon, and we had a good talk about his story.

He defended the current wording as being technically correct. I agreed, but said that when I first read his story I got the impression that the existing white oaks were going to be part of the landscape design. In fact, I said as much in some Facebook posts that contained a link to the Salem Reporter story.

In my view, it would have been better to add a sentence after the second paragraph: "In fact, the proposal approved by City officials does allow the removal of eight significant white oaks that are at least 24 inches in diameter, with the 16 replacement trees only being required to be 2 inches in diameter."

Brynelson indicated that he may write another story that focuses on how Salem has treated its Oregon White Oaks, which sounds like a great idea. I'm enjoying the Salem Reporter, so don't mistake my quibble with part of the Costco story for a serious criticism of how the journalists there are doing.

Lastly, the City of Salem has a history of treating large, beautiful, healthy trees badly. Whenever I write about trees, I like to share a link to my 2014 tell-all report about how City officials wrongly cut down five gorgeous downtown trees for no good reason, and misled citizens about why they did it. See:

August 22, 2018

It's embarrassing that the SKATS (Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study) body, which focuses on transportation planning in our area, has some global warming deniers on it who are mightily resisting connecting a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions with how people should get around via vehicles, mass transit, bicycles, and whatever.

Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study (SKATS) is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Salem-Keizer area. A MPO is a federally mandated body for any urban area over 50,000 in population. The SKATS MPO is directed by a Policy Committee composed of elected representatives from the cities of Keizer, Salem and Turner, Marion and Polk Counties, the Salem Area Mass Transit District, the Salem-Keizer School District and a manager from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Region 2 office. MWVCOG staff provide the day-to-day staff work for SKATS.

The Salem Breakfast on Bikes blogger has been following the saga of how, following a City of Salem strategic planning initiative calling for greenhouse gases to be studied, and, I assume, reduced, Marion County Commissioner Sam Brentano has been the SKATS ringleader in denying science, common sense, and the will of the public to deal with global warming.

"According to the Oregon Global Warming Commission’s 2017 Biennial Report to the Legislature, Oregon will not meet the Legislature’s 2020 target for greenhouse gas emissions reduction (ten percent below 1990 levels). We also are not on track for the Legislature’s 2035 and 2050 goals. With greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector increasing (rather than decreasing), and with transportation responsible for 39 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the state, it’s clear we need renewed focus on reducing emissions in this sector."

At last month's meeting of our Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Policy Committee endured a different smoke-blowing from members who insisted that "SKATS' focus is transportation not the environment" - notwithstanding clear Legislative direction to reduce emissions in the transportation sector.

...The result seemed to be a weasely version of Goal 7 that makes no specific reference to greenhouse gas emissions, and merely adds an "explanatory statement" that project evaluation "may include" things like greenhouse gas emissions. As a goal, it's all very optional, hardly a goal at all - a fig leaf.

What seems to be going on here is that the MPO/SKATS has some sort of weird commitment to consensus among its members, even though the representative of the City of Salem obviously speaks for hugely more people, than, say, the representative of the City of Turner.

Thus rather than basing transportation planning goals on settled science -- global warming is happening, humans are responsible for it via greenhouse gas emissions, and something needs to be done about it -- SKATS appears to want a dumbing down of a environmental impact goal such that the language is so meaningless, even a global warming denier like Commissioner Sam Brentano will be comfortable with it.

Hopefully this won't happen.

Unfortunately, I believe the City of Salem representative is Jim Lewis, one of the three remaining conservatives on the nine-member Salem City Council.

Lewis doesn't have strong environmental credentials, to put it mildly, so he is unlikely to be a strong advocate for an explicit SKATS commitment to making reduction of greenhouse gas emissions part of the local transportation planning process.

Salem's Mayor, Chuck Bennett, and the City Manager, Steve Powers, need to make it crystal clear to Jim Lewis and the rest of the SKATS/MPO members that it is totally unacceptable to water down a goal calling for greenhouse gas emissions to be part of transportation planning policies in this area.

Consensus, or unanimity, is great when this makes sense. However, combatting global warming is too damn serious to allow a few science-deniers to have a veto power over the wording of a SKATS/MPO environmental goal.

After Wille's piece, you can read the comment I left on the Statesman Journal web site about what she wrote. I'll have more to say on this subject down below.

Here's an iPhone screenshot of the Google Maps satellite image of the Old Lindbeck Orchard.

And here's what Wille said about the transformation of the orchard property:

It was a heart-wrenching day in West Salem as men and machines moved on the last remnant of the old Lindbeck orchard and farm (on Orchard Heights Road NW) .

Sold by the owners years ago for development of high-density retirement housing, the land, having been spent on industry and profit it once yielded, enjoyed its own retirement, its own industry, its own profit.

This orchard, “abandoned” by the human enterprise, responded with its own enterprise: habitat for plants, animals, insects, soil microbes, fungi, mosses; food for those same inhabitants; shelter; and a treasured place for the local people who walked, sat, thought, watched, listened, laughed, cried, breathed, and reveled in the richness, the diversity, and the peace among the old trees and all the denizens living there.

Relegated to oblivion by those who had every right to relegate it, it drew life of all sorts to thrive and prosper: feeding, sheltering, comforting, energizing, inspiring, moving, quieting all who would come with capacity to appreciate it. Until the bulldozers, the mowers, the one-woman protester, and the police met in a sad and hopeless moment — the surveys done, the meetings met, the papers signed, the legalities impregnable.

One of the young men on a machine said to the one-woman protestor who lay herself down in his path that he was sorry, he had education enough to run his machine and, in that running, to feed his own hungry souls. He was bereft; we all are in the loss of this living, dynamic, diverse treasure sacrificed forever.

Ideally, an old orchard, like an old relative, is safe, soft-spoken, unconcerned with time’s frenzies, experienced, wise in its way. Once that orchard, that land, produced in response to the hard-working people who shepherded it: making and giving its fruits to the farmers who worked it, cared for it, as a young, vigorous money-maker, supporter of commerce and feeder of the apple-hungry, thereby delighting tastebuds near and far.

The retirement of this place, left to simply be, is most rudely, irrevocably ruined, with far-reaching implications for all of us. If it cannot survive, neither can we.

Jane, thank you for giving voice in such a poetic and sensitive fashion to what so many people in Salem feel, yet have difficulty expressing in the way you did so well in this opinion piece.

In the single-minded pursuit of monetary profit, developers are laying waste to priceless, irreplaceable land that could be fashioned into a fresh use while still preserving natural habitat that is so essential for human thriving.

With every needless destruction of trees and other natural wonders, Salem is selling its soul for... what? A few extra bucks in the pockets of greedy developers, while the quality of life for everyone else in this town suffers.

There are lots of people who feel the way you do. We need to make our voices heard more strongly. Hopefully your paean to the now-gone West Salem orchard and farm will lead to what is known as "smart growth," not the dumb growth we're experiencing now.

Here's some explanation of why I said what I did.

Fairly regularly I hear from people who are disturbed by how a new development is affecting their neighborhood. This isn't NIMBY, Not in My Backyard, reflexive anti-development sentiments.

Rather, these people have good reasons to be concerned about why their quality of life is being needlessly sacrificed when the owner of a piece of property could have still made a good amount of profit while preserving trees and other natural areas.

I'm reminded of how the Salem Futures project was stopped in its tracks after making good progress, following a conservative takeover of the Mayor's office and City Council.

Googling "Salem Futures," there is very little information online about this effort. Thankfully, Salem Weekly has some mentions of it in the newspaper's online archive.

“Smart growth” was once said with a sneer locally. “Sustainability” meant large businesses were not welcome and “green” was just the color of money being raked in.

Field Director of the Oregon League of Conservation Voters (OLCV) Tresa Horney says that gauging Salem’s progress environmentally is hard to pinpoint because of the economic circumstances that the city has faced.

“At one point Salem was recognized as a national leader in environmental issues, under [former mayor] Mike Swaim. Today, it’s obviously a different story,” says Horney.

Development philosophy changed drastically when Salem City Council turned more conservative in 2003. While each of the councilor positions are non-partisan, the decisions made began to show that voters had elected to move farther to the right.

Salem became, according to the Associated Press at the time, the first major city in Oregon to establish an environmental commission to focus solely on local issues in 2002. It was disbanded in 2004.

...April 2004 – Salem City Council votes to eliminate the Salem Futures Citizen Advisory Council. Salem Futures had amassed, reportedly, $1.3 million in city and state funds and thousands of hours of volunteer time.

Salem Futures planned community development over the next 50 years. At the time, the CAC was made up of approximately 30 community leaders.

And here's a comment by Richard Reid regarding Salem Futures on a 2017 Salem Weekly story about the City of Salem's first strategic plan.

Some of your readers and a couple of your Editorial Committee will recall the strategic plan we called Salem Futures created during Mayor Swaim’s second term. Articles about Salem Futures are in local news archives available at Salem Public Library.

It was a pretty big deal; ODOT granted $1.3 million to help the City host charettes across town for a little over a year. Dialogues between a broad range of community interests and city planners produced a planning document that drew positive comment from beyond Oregon.

Unusual for a strategic plan Salem Futures was drafted on a 50-year timeline laying out major transportation corridors and other features like “walkability” and “public space” where people could meet up and linger. Multi-use zone overlays were designed to nudge commercial development closer to existing and future transportation corridors; a way of lowering the public’s cost of providing services while streamlining entry into the local marketplace.

All that went bye-bye thanks to the Salem Chamber of Commerce deciding that Mayor Swaim and a liberal majority on the City Council needed to be replaced by conservatives who would prioritize the interests of developers over the broad public interest.

Salem is still paying the price for this.

We've gotten ugly sprawl, traffic jams, a lack of attractive mixed-use neighborhoods, and a general anti-environment philosophy at City Hall that has only recently begun to be altered.

Just as a supertanker takes a long time to change direction, so does planning and land use policies here in Salem. It was a big mistake to disband Salem Futures when much good work had been accomplished by this pioneering effort.

I'm hopeful that five or ten years from now, people will look back on 2018 as a turning point for Salem -- a time when the mistakes of the conservative-dominated past had begun to be rectified by a wiser group of progressives on the City Council.

June 20, 2018

It's an all-too-familiar theme here in Salem: people feeling powerless about unwelcome development in their neighborhood that they feel is being pushed upon them by forces they can't control.

Before sharing photos of what's planned for the new shopping center where Costco will be the dominant presence, I wanted to show the most surprising aspect of the meeting. Empty chairs.

This reflects the failure of Costco Wholesale and PacTrust real estate representatives to have the guts to stand up in front of concerned neighbors and answer their questions about why it makes sense to plunk a gigantic big box store right next to a residential area where people already feel the traffic is getting unmanageable.

Along with other people I talked to at the meeting, I figured it would start off with a presentation by Costco and PacTrust staff, then move into a Q & A session. But no, staff members simply stood by easels, passively waiting for people to talk to them.

Though Costco Wholesale and PacTrust real estate officials did not officially confirm Costco is relocating to Kuebler Boulevard SE in South Salem, their statements and visual aids at a Tuesday night meeting indicated they're just waiting for city approval.

The sessionleft local residents feeling deflated.

Costco and PacTrust officials stood by signs and mock-up designs of the proposed store at an open house event.

Area residents and members of the South Gateway Neighborhood Association were invited to ask any and all questions they had about the proposed move and dozens attended.

But residents said they left feeling unheard and their questions unanswered.

Wollslair has lived in the neighborhood for 35 years. She is one of the hundreds of residents who oppose the potential Costco coming to Kuebler Boulevard SE.

It's easy to understand why neighbors are opposed to Costco relocating from the current Mission Street location.

A couple I spoke with had hoped that the shopping center would be a lot more akin to charming walkable Bridgeport Village than to a smaller version of the ghastly autocentric Keizer Station where it is virtually impossible to walk from shopping area to shopping area, given the vast parking lots.

I told them that, indeed, it's hard to imagine people in the neighborhood getting all excited about walking to Costco, then pushing a cart loaded with four gigantic boxes of paper towels back to their home.

Regarding how the proposed Costco would look, I talked with one of their architects, noting that it must be pretty easy to design a Costco, since it is the epitome of a big box store. The image above is of the entrance, which doesn't look all that bad.

But the Boone Road street view is unattractive.

The architect did point out to me that there weren't any garish red signs on the side of the building that faces a residential area, and they're going to plant evergreens along with other vegetation to soften the very long concrete side of the building. But there's no really no way to make a big box store look like anything but what it is: a big box.

This image shows the lay of the Costco land.

The existing Salem Clinic and other building in the lower left hand corner strike me as having a large parking lot. However, you can see that Costco is going to have a gigantic parking area, which also will serve four much smaller retail buildings along Kuebler Boulevard.

The Costco gas station, with 24 pumps, is in the upper right corner. Salem's first roundabout (we really should have more, given how well they work) is shown midway down 27th Avenue.

Regarding the ancillary retail buildings in the shopping center, my snap impression was They look exactly like every other building of that sort built in Salem during the past few years.

PacTrust has labeled each as "Coffee" or "Deli," apparently in a hope that neighbors opposed to the development can be bought off by a promise of a latte or sandwich to soothe the pain of the Costco right next door. (Forgive the shadow; I didn't want to ask the person to move just to have a shadowless photo.)

The scale of the proposed Costco is shown in this image that compares it with the current Costco on Mission Street. It is considerably larger, with more fueling stations. It's true that the proposed Costco would have four vehicle access points, but most people would reach the Costco via Keubler Boulevard, exiting either on Battle Creek Road or 27th Avenue.

So the concern of neighbors about traffic back-ups seems justified.

I listened to a neighbor ask the Costco architect about semi-truck deliveries, as she was worried about back-up beeping noise in the middle of the night. The architect said that deliveries are indeed made outside of the hours the store is open, but neighbors could ask City of Salem officials to require that more deliveries be made in the early morning, rather than late at night.

She didn't seem reassured.

Here's what happens next, according to a friend who spoke with the City planner who's working on the Costco application. The application hasn't been approved yet, but reportedly it would be a staff-level decision -- unless one or more City Council members ask that it get a hearing at a Council meeting.

Given the level of opposition to Costco, this seems likely, if not assured. I believe the planner has until July 6 to recommend approval or denial of the Costco application. Then there would be a two-week public comment period. A final decision would be made by August 1.

I don't know how an appeal of the decision would be handled -- whether by a hearings officer, the City Council, or the Land Use Board of Appeals.

As I noted at the start of this post, what's most bothersome to me about this Costco issue is how powerless neighbors feel in the face of big-money development interests. I realize this isn't new news here in Salem. For a long time developers have called the shots, and residents have had to put up with where those shots landed.

Last night I heard people talk about what could be done about this, both in regard to the current Costco proposal and long-term. Revisions to Salem Comprehensive Plan are in the works, to my understanding. Maybe these will put a halt, or at least slow down, giant shopping centers being built on the periphery of the city, to the detriment of the urban core.

A revision to the City Charter also was talked about, a subject I know next to nothing about.

I'll end by noting that someone told me that fairly recently another meeting about this development was held at the South Salem Seniors building. Reportedly about 175 concerned citizens attended, including several city councilors, Tom Andersen and Chris Hoy.

Nobody showed up from Costco or PacTrust.

This shows an unhealthy arrogance on the part of the would-be developers of the Kuebler Boulevard property. Apparently they feel that all they need to do is talk with City staff, then get their application rubber-stamped by compliant City of Salem officials. Communicating with people in the neighborhood who would have to live with a giant Costco... unnecessary.

Shameful? Yes. The way things typically are done here in Salem? Unfortunately, that's also a yes.

Lastly, anyone who wants to stay in touch with the Costco application should email the South Gateway Neighborhood Association person: [email protected]

June 14, 2018

So how would you feel if you lived next to 27 acres of untouched forest land just outside the Salem city limits, and one day logging equipment rolls in to clear-cut all of the trees -- firs, white oaks, other species?

And when you asked someone in charge why this was being done, they reportedly said, "I'm logging it for timber."

Except, it turns out that this really isn't true, because a 46 acre, 212 lot subdivision is planned for the property that's north of Robins Lane SE and west of the I-5 freeway.

To cap it off, you later learn that the developer of that property submitted a Pre-Application with the City of Salem in April 2017, because the developer wants the land annexed by the city, plus, of course, approval of the 212 lot subdivison.

In the Pre-Application report prepared by the Community Development Department, there's a requirement that the developer prepare a tree conservation plan "to preserve all heritage trees, significant trees, trees and native vegetation within riparian corridors, and a minimum of 25 percent of the remaining trees on the property."

From what I've said so far, it's completely understandable why the people who live near the proposed subdivision are angered by the loss of the urban forest, which reportedly included quite a few large white oaks.

I learned about the clear-cutting and subdivision plans from Andrea Balcavage.

She lives near the proposed development and took on the task of reaching out to people like me who could publicize what's going on. We talked by phone a few days ago, then Andrea emailed me some photos and documents, which I'll share below.

Part of what irritates Andrea and her neighbors is that they live close to the I-5 freeway, and the trees that were cut down served as a sound barrier. In an email, she said:

Another big concern is that the freeway is LOUD, we can all hear it, even inside with windows closed. The trees provided sound and wind protection. Wind is crazy up here now. I'm sure there would have been a sound wall built when the neighborhood was built had the trees not been there.

Mark Ferris of Salem's Project Delivery Group is shown as the Applicant/Representative. This afternoon I left a message asking Ferris to call me back, as I have some questions for him. Basically, they are:

(1) Was a tree conservation plan prepared prior to the clear-cutting of the 27 acres, as the City of Salem seemingly required?(2) Why were all of the trees on the 27 acres cut down, given the fact that they provided a freeway sound buffer, and it is well known that large trees add value to a lot, being something that most homebuyers want?

Andrea told me that Marion County doesn't protect any trees. This must explain why the clear-cutting was allowed, even though the property is bordered on three sides by land within the Salem city limits. Part of the clear-cutting permit is shown above.

One MBF is a thousand board feet, which is 83.33 cubic feet. So 450 MBF is 37,499 cubic feet, or 1,389 cubic yards of wood. Imagine 1,389 blocks of solid wood three feet high, three feet wide, and three feet deep. That's how much wood was in the trees clear-cut in the south Salem urban forest.

As reflected in the questions I want to ask of Mark Ferris, it doesn't seem right that the developer of the proposed subdivision should get a free pass on having their property be annexed by the City of Salem if a tree conservation plan was required, but wasn't prepared.

Now, it may be that a tree conservation plan was prepared. If so, it's perplexing why, according to Andrea, many large trees, including white oaks, were cut down this year. Above is the tree section of the Pre-Application Report.

And here's another section of the report with a requirement that seems at odds with how the 27 acres was logged.

This is an image which gives a pretty good view of how many trees were on the subdivision property. Another view can be obtained by comparing the subdivision vicinity map below with the following Google Images screenshot. Robins Lane is the orange "pin" in the Google Images screenshot.

I could be wrong, but the maps I've shared sure seem to show that most of the trees on the 46 acre, 212-lot proposed subdivision already have been cut down. I look forward to learning from Mark Ferris if this is correct.

(I'm going to send him a link to this blog post with a request for comment, if he doesn't return my call before I publish it.)

If I'm right, and a tree conservation plan wasn't prepared prior to the clear-cutting, that would make a tree conservation plan pretty damn easy to prepare -- since there are few trees remaining on the property.

Andrea told me that on her .16 acre lot, which isn't much larger than the size of the lots in the proposed 212-lot subdivision, there are seven oak trees. So when her Robins Lane neighborhood came to be, the developer had the foresight and wisdom to save many significant large trees.

Yet now, in 2018, developers can get away with removing every large tree, then they plant small trees that will take dozens of years to grow to the size of the trees that were cut down. Something is wrong here.

It may be legal to clear-cut 27 acres of urban forest, but it sure isn't the right thing to do.

UPDATE: I just talked with a City of Salem planner who confirmed what I suspected. Even though the developer was told that a tree conservation plan was required in a Pre-Application Report, this only applies when the actual subdivision plans are submitted. So the developer was able to cut down all of the trees on the property, or almost all of them, prior to submitting a subdivision application.

Of course, now there won't be a need for a tree conservation plan, because there are no or very few trees on the property.

The planner said that the only way to stop this sort of thing would either be for the Marion County Commissioners to change their ordinance, or for the City of Salem and Marion County to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement that would stop the practice of clear-cutting on unincorporated land prior to a developer asking for the property to be added to the city limits.

I asked if there was any way City officials could penalize the developer for running roughshod over the spirit of Salem's tree preservation regulations, and I got no answer. So it looks like the developer will be able to move ahead with a request for the property to become part of the City of Salem, even though the developer clear-cut the 27 acres in a fashion that was against City policies.

Organizers of the Bi-Mart Willamette Country Music Festival want to move the four-day event to Marion County and more than double its size, to as many as 60,000 attendees per day.

But opposition is building over the proposed location: 692 acres of farmland bordering Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge, 12 miles south of Salem.

Opponents, including neighbors, farmers and birders, say the event has the potential to create miles-long traffic backups on Interstate 5 and through the refuge; increase theft, vandalism, litter and the likelihood of accidents at the refuge and surrounding farms; and harm wildlife at the refuge.

The for-profit event, staged in Brownsville for the past 10 years, offers camping and boasts more than 30 acts. This year they include Alabama, Kid Rock and Lady Antebellum.

This is a screenshot from the event's Outdoor Mass Gathering permit application.

The I-5 freeway exit closest to the event is the Ankeny Hill exit, shown in the upper right corner. There would be additional parking areas in other spots not shown on this image. You can download the application via the link below.Download BiMartCountryMusicFestivalMGApp

Since the organizers are estimating 40,000 to 60,000 people would attend the four day event -- August 16-19, 2018 -- and opponents of the festival say it could be as many as 70,000, this is shaping up to be a major controversy. Even though the festival would bring money into Salem and Albany, it also could cause some major traffic, environmental, and other problems.

"Our goal is to leave the property, always, in condition equal to or better than it was when we arrived," the permit application states.

The application estimates the economic impact of the four-day festival, as measured by tourism groups, at more than $3.5 million annually to the local economy.

Since its beginnings in Brownsville more than a decade ago, the festival has requested volunteer help from schools and mid-valley nonprofits, providing more than $250,000 each year in return.

My wife is active with a group of people, including farmers in the area, who are opposing moving the Country Music Festival from Brownsville. She's heard that the reasons this is being attempted is to be able to have a bigger venue so more people could attend the festival, and because volunteers in the Brownsville area are burning out, so festival organizers want to start fresh in a new place.

We live close to the Ankeny Wildlife Refuge. Here's a map my wife made which shows the refuge (in green) and where the festival's stage, camping, and parking would be located. "Creeks" is printed at the bottom of the map.

This is a traffic flow map included in the Outdoor Mass Gathering application. Festival attendees would take the Talbot Road and Ankeny Hill exits, and also would arrive from points north by taking Liberty Road S, which becomes Buena Vista when it reaches the edge of the refuge.

So lots of vehicles would be traveling on roads adjacent to and through the refuge for the four days of the festival.

A fact which gives me reason to believe that the three Republican Marion County Commissioners aren't eager to have a big crowd of farmers, environmentalists, and lefties come out to urge the permit be denied. There's no email address in the Hearing Notice to which testimony for or against the Mass Gathering Permit should be sent, but I'm pretty sure it is [email protected]

Reportedly the Hearing Officer will produce a report by January 31, and the Board of Commissioners will make a decision on the Mass Gathering Permit by February 28.

If the permit is denied by the Board of Commissioners, apparently the 2018 Bi-Mart Willamette Country Music Festival would be held at the Brownsville location. Or, the organizers could appeal the denial.